Hello Caleb. The part describing the negatives of such a scheme is taking

Comment on Pension Age to Rise to 66 in 2016 – and 70 in the Future by Cameron.

Hello Caleb.

The part describing the negatives of such a scheme is taking a large leap of faith, either misunderstanding the current system or assuming that certain unannounced changes are going to happen (Somehow I doubt even the Conservatives are going to remove disability benefits.). It’s the equivalent of saying that if Labour decided to increase public spending, that it’s an issue if they remove the income ‘Safeguard’ of tax. It’s something that is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever going to happen, you might as well be discussing what would happen politically if the universe turned into candy (Which although is a mathematical possibility in the trillions of billions, will never realistically happen).

Take for instance two people in this new system, both males. One who is 26, the other is 69. Both work in the same low level job. Both end up becoming totally unable to work either due to old age or disability. Both will get the same benefits to cover such event, in a way both people regardless of age get ‘carried’ by the state. There is nobody forcing people to work if they can’t do so. The only people they are forcing to work are healthy able bodied people and extra 4 years. If anything the laws around pension age need relaxing, so people can work as long as they want, with the starting pension age being a option rather then forced onto people.

Cameron